No you fucking idiot, your response is showing that you have no basis and nor is his response a different way of ignoring it. The statement "go google it" means that I can get some fucking crackpots blog about it and no verifiable proof. Why should I have to go research your claim because you are either too fucking lazy to prove it yourself or none exists. Why do you think in a court of law its not the defendants jobs to prove his own guilt and its the prosecutions job. You made a claim so prove it. If you

Al Jazeera Arabic, or Al Jazeera English? They're very different sources, and one of them is highly respected throughout the world for in-depth coverage and serious journalism (except, perhaps, in America).

Al Jazeera Arabic, or Al Jazeera English? They're very different sources, and one of them is highly respected throughout the world for in-depth coverage and serious journalism (except, perhaps, in America).

On what evidence do you make this claim? Seriously, lets see analysis showing their English reporting is substantially better than their Arabic reporting. And I'm not talking about some talk show with an asshole on it, I'm talking news coverage.

Well, the English channel's Awards list [wikipedia.org] is significantly longer than the Arabic channel [wikipedia.org], and contains several prestigious awards for excellence in journalism. This, despite having a decade less time to have acquired them.

The differences in tone and spin are marked, and have been noted in various places (particularly after the purchase of Current TV by AJE). Al Jazeera itself does some excellent work, just as Fox News occasionally does some real journalism, but the entire institution is brought down by the

Well, the English channel's Awards list is significantly longer than the Arabic channel, and contains several prestigious awards for excellence in journalism. This, despite having a decade less time to have acquired them.

Oh come on. Its wikipedia - (a) neither list is comprehensive, (b) they aren't necessarily all that prestigious "youtube european partners" and "webby" awards, lol and (c) the awards there are mostly language-centric and there are a ton more english speakers looking to hand out awards - the middle east doesn't have much in the way of institutional recognition for good reporting.

I can't find the article now in the sea of others regarding the Current TV sale,

Too bad.

They also point out that both are generally better than any major American news broadcast, but given that even CNN has completely cut out their investigative news team in favor of silly holograms and touch screens, that's not a terribly high bar to reach.

CNN only cut that department this past summer, so that's hardly a fair disqualification given that whole extra decade yo

Actually, this makes it easier for drones to kill you. Since it defines public airspace as "anything above your shoelaces," they could just fly a big jet drone right through your chest and then say, "Sorry about that, but we were flying our drone in public airspace. What the hell was your body doing up there??"

It would take an hour to disect how many ways that post was hypocrtical and self-contradicting. I bet a psychologist could write a thesis on that logic trainwreck.

I'll leave well enough alone with just saying this: A true libertarian will never promote a ban on anything unless that thing is by its nature a threat to freedom. Swimming pools, cars, and trans-fats, and guns are not threats to freedom. Bans on them are.

The Government can ignore this just like they ignore a sovereign States authority (See DIA raids in CA on marijuana shops and farms). In fairness, the town must abide by State law which may invalidate the City law.

Until more people wake up and shake off the cobwebs, the police state will continue to grow. I hope like hell we catch it in time, but looking at media and education I have strong doubts.

The Government can ignore this just like they ignore a sovereign States authority (See DIA raids in CA on marijuana shops and farms). In fairness, the town must abide by State law which may invalidate the City law.

Until more people wake up and shake off the cobwebs, the police state will continue to grow. I hope like hell we catch it in time, but looking at media and education I have strong doubts.

Well, they may not be able to prevent Federal Drones, but State and County drones may be banned, especially if this City has a home-rule charter (giving them local law enforcement authority).

In Seattle, there is currently an uproar over drone use by Seattle PD [king5.com]. The Police have them, but haven't used them yet. They want to put them into use [seattle.gov], but the public is pretty much opposed, and SPD hasn't made a convincing use case, or even cited any recent incident where these might have been useful. (They carry small cameras, and by the looks of them do not provide any telemetry.)

The idea is to prevent your own law enforcement units from wasting their time peeping into back yards and windows. By the time State Authorities and the Feds arrive, the situation is totally out of hand anyway. The demand on state and fed resources is probably such that their arrival with drones in hand is less likely.

So just keeping your local PD/Sheriff from acquiring invasive tools goes a long way.

A City of a State is subjective to the State. If they State law states that Drones are okay, then the City must allow them. The Cities are supposed to be represented in the State just as the States are subjective to the US Government.

I agree that people should vocally be opposing all drones at all levels. Power however has diminished the voice of the People to near mute in the last decade.

A City of a State is subjective to the State. If they State law states that Drones are okay, then the City must allow them. The Cities are supposed to be represented in the State just as the States are subjective to the US Government.

What you say may be technically true, but on the ground in day to day business, local law enforcement pretty much carries the load, and state and federal law enforcement act strictly as support, unless they are called in by local authorities, or ordered in by the Governor.You do not generally see a city swarmed by US Marshals doing day to day law enforcement tasks. Turf is quite rigorously defended.

You might have DEA running around with Drones, but seldom unknown to local police, and usually only if there

The Cities are supposed to be represented in the State just as the States are subjective to the US Government.

That is actually not strictly correct.

States are not completely subject to the Federal Government. City governments generally ARE completely subject to state governments.

The US constitution grants certain powers to the Federal vs State governments. On ones granted to the states the Federal Government cannot interfere. Now, in practice everybody ignores the constitution, but there are still some limits.

If your local school board gets out of hand chances are the state would just appoint an administrator an

There is absolutely nothing irrational with concerns about tyranny. Go read a history book and realize that the fear is very rational. Hell, go read Plato's Republic and see that fear nor tyranny are new.

Let me clue you in:

Study Hegalian dialectic. Create dialogue -> Present dilemma -> Provide solution. This method has been effective in stripping you of your constitutional rights. It has also resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the last century alone. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and the US Government have all used this method. If you have doubts about the US Government, Fast and Furious has been well documented for the public to see. If you prove one, there are probably a lot more hiding in the bushes.

By the time State Authorities and the Feds arrive, the situation is totally out of hand anyway. The demand on state and fed resources is probably such that their arrival with drones in hand is less likely.

Or MORE likely, if they can just send a cheap drone instead of expensive people.

How about: we can patrol more space more efficiently?How about we can save money?How about we can track someone without engaging in a high speed chase?

invasive? it is a camera that watcher public space. let me know when they want to fly them into your home.

You can't patrol more space flying a silly drone around. The ones you can afford don't have the range. The ones the have the range cost too much.You can't save money by having cops play with RC drones. You still need guys in cars. Only an Iraqi would surrender to a drone.You can't track someone with a drone that your typical city can afford. It will never be where you want it to be when you need it. They don't have the range. It doesn have the speed, even to keep up with OJ.They want to fly them to look into your home (regardless of what they say).

They already have the helicopters, and it's a multi mission machine. You can pick people out of rivers, drop officers and supplies in inaccessible places, chase cars, and evacuate officers, and land on roofs.

The Government can ignore this just like they ignore a sovereign States authority (See DIA raids in CA on marijuana shops and farms). In fairness, the town must abide by State law which may invalidate the City law.

Until more people wake up and shake off the cobwebs, the police state will continue to grow. I hope like hell we catch it in time, but looking at media and education I have strong doubts.

Well, they may not be able to prevent Federal Drones, but State and County drones may be banned, especially if this City has a home-rule charter (giving them local law enforcement authority).

In Seattle, there is currently an uproar over drone use by Seattle PD [king5.com]. The Police have them, but haven't used them yet. They want to put them into use [seattle.gov], but the public is pretty much opposed, and SPD hasn't made a convincing use case, or even cited any recent incident where these might have been useful. (They carry small cameras, and by the looks of them do not provide any telemetry.)

The idea is to prevent your own law enforcement units from wasting their time peeping into back yards and windows. By the time State Authorities and the Feds arrive, the situation is totally out of hand anyway. The demand on state and fed resources is probably such that their arrival with drones in hand is less likely.

So just keeping your local PD/Sheriff from acquiring invasive tools goes a long way.

We might be stoners here in Seattle, but we aren't stupid. The Police is likely to abuse the usage of Drones, and we know it.

Of course the FAA has previously declared "airspace" over 500 -1000 feet because that's the minimum they allow standard aircraft to fly. The whole drone thing is greased DoD palms... So it's going to happen.

"The Government can ignore this just like they ignore a sovereign States authority (See DIA raids in CA on marijuana shops and farms)."

The Feds actually can not -- and have not -- been conducting raids without at least tacit assistance from the State.

This administration has stated that it will not conduct raids unless the operations in question are in violation of STATE law. I know of anothr state where they did in fact conduct raids, but the operations were (technically, depending on how you interpret the law) in violation of State law.

So they may be asses about it, and interpret the law in their own favor, but to the best of my kno

Labels are attempts to avoid dialogue on subjects based on how they are labelled. I'm not saying you are attempting to avoid the subject, but rather pointing out that you did not have any impact, positive or negative, on my statements throwing out labels. If you are not educated enough to realize what you did, shame on you for being ignorant. If you are educated enough to realize what you did, shame on you for avoiding dialogue and jumping on a fallacy wagon.

I'm a liberal (not a Democrat mind you, Democrats are just the New GOP and the old GOP is merely a parody of itself) -- but I'm totally for States' Rights. The more I see what the Federales do, the more I would love to see a secessionist movement not rooted in white supremecy groups or religious freakery. The greatest threat to liberal values in the world today is the US Federal government and a constitutional amendment allowing unilateral peaceful secession of states would be a very interesting thing to have. Even if states didn't suddenly jump ship, the very existence of that right would make the Feds a bit more circumspect (at least probably, but who knows, they're pretty stuck up).

I guess you didn't read my post. What was decided in the civil war subsequent Supreme Court cases, was that secession required bilateral agreement between the Feds and the seceding state. A constitutional amendment clearly outlining a path for unilateral secession would make that history moot.

I just want to think and laugh at how Dems love State rights when they agree with the idea being practiced. (not saying you are a Dem or that I am a Repub)

I don't think I've ever seen a politician (besides possibly Ron and Rand Paul -- and I'm not even sure about them sometimes) advocate State vs. Federal Government when it wasn't just a way to get what they want through. In fact, you'll see the same politicians argue the opposite ends of the same thing 10 years later when the political winds have shifted and now suddenly their State would be against it, but the Federal Government might get it through. It's almost always a proxy-war over some other issue, a

Ah, come on, I'm not saying Kool Aid wasn't involved, but did you check out the other guy? What do you think he would have done about the impeding police state? Of course we don't really know because his answer would have depended on who was asking it. We're F'ed.

As much as I hate that narcissistic slacker, it's not all Obama's fault. It's a powerful central government that has a limitless appetite for power, so both Democrats and Republicans are to blame. They don't care about the citizens whatsoever. All they care about is power.

We need to get rid of all incumbents every election. Don't let them get used to the power. Then, after a few elections, maybe we can get people in office who will start dismantling the massive bureaucracy that has taken over Washington. Congress passes one law, and then the bureaucrats create a thousand nit-picking regulations from it.

Call me a conservative, a liberal, or even a libertarian; I don't really care. But, folks, if we don't get a handle on the size of government, we're all going to suffer. Remember the old saying, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take everything you have." (including all of your freedoms)

These days I am looking at this as a straight up power grab by the executive branch. The Patriot act and the recent leaked memo indicate their intents and desire to usurp the checks and balances to keep any one body from gaining too much power. Obama being in charge of the branch authorizing a police state and 30,000 drones and how to circumvent due process of their own citizens has the ability to to say no, fight for the Constitution and the citizens rights to privacy and dignity associated with it. If I

Your post is a little confusing to me, but I hope you haven't fallen for the lie that Obama wanted to end the practices of Gitmo. Obama did try to close Gitmo and Congress stood in the way, but it was a type of "closing" where those practices were merely imported to a Federal Supermax in Illinois, not a "closing" in the sense of ending the practice of indefinite due process free detention. It was a very clever bit of politics on Obama's part -- something an uncritical Democrat could latch on to in the tribal GOP v. DNC clownfight.

Go read something AC, like US History. The Republic was founded as a Union of States. States are only bound to the US Government by Constitutional Law (The laws that make up the Constitution and Bill of Rights). That is the function of the Constitution. It is up to States to write and enforce Laws that are not in the Constitution. The US Government is not entitled Police forces inside of a State under the Constitution. This was done by EO illegally and is still allowed, primarily because people like y

Oh come now, either you are a government shill or ignorant (perhaps intentionally, but I have my doubts). Have you read the Patriot Act? Have you read the 2011 NDAA? Do you understand the purpose of the TSA? Why is TSA patrolling sporting events, train stations, and concerts in Detroit? All of those can be validated with Google. Have you read and understood the intent and purpose of the new NSA center opening this summer?

A police state is a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population.

Do you understand how escalation works? Do you know that by definition we are al

Two words. Drone Season. There you go, its a self correcting problem. You can increase the tax base by selling licenses too. Just thing, for $75 bucks every gun toating, drunk ass redneck can fill the sky with lead.

Two words. Drone Season. There you go, its a self correcting problem. You can increase the tax base by selling licenses too. Just thing, for $75 bucks every gun toating, drunk ass redneck can fill the sky with lead.

No..its a fantastic idea!! Using one of these babys [barrett.net]...load up and yell PULL as soon as you see a drone coming your way....

Actually, because the drones are licensed by the FAA that would be illegal.

In fact that is the one legit case for news gatherers because "technically" your ar.drone toy that has a camera might be illegal if you posted the video to YouTube or something commercial. Right now, your neighbor COULD shoot it down if it crossed their property under the RC toys rules.

The faster we slide to full on fascism, the sooner it will all collapse and we can finally re-evaluate our principles. I'm tired of this moderately predatory murder-based society being able to justify itself due to the prosperity created by the last vestiges of peace and voluntarism. Let's fucking drown ourselves in violence so we can finally recognize that none of this evil is justified. Let us kill the healthy host completely so that the parasite is exposed. Then perhaps we can start over without any illusion that violent parasitism is good in moderation.

I play around with RC planes and my kids want to attach a camera to our next project. Does that make me a criminal? I thought it made me a cool Dad!

Take it outside city limits, you should be fine with the law.

Can't speak for the rural folks around those parts, but I know that if I were out in my field and saw something suspicious and obviously unmanned flying over my property, I'd be hard pressed to not at least scope the thing, if not blow it clear out of the sky just out of principle.

I play around with RC planes and my kids want to attach a camera to our next project. Does that make me a criminal? I thought it made me a cool Dad!

Take it outside city limits, you should be fine with the law.

Can't speak for the rural folks around those parts, but I know that if I were out in my field and saw something suspicious and obviously unmanned flying over my property, I'd be hard pressed to not at least scope the thing, if not blow it clear out of the sky just out of principle.

Scope? You mean you would shoot at my RC airplane with a scoped rifle? I doubt that you could hit it. Regardless, shooting a rifle at a high angle into the air is a remarkably reckless thing to do. That bullet will come down with lethal velocity at a random location, perhaps several miles away. Perhaps you should give your idea more thought.

1) not all rifles are created equally - a 30-06 has a much greater range than, say, a 9mm carbine.

2) I never said I would shoot it with a rifle, anyway; you shouldn't assume so much - a shotgun would likely be plenty effective. And yes, if you trespass on my property with your little toy, I can and will blow that fucker to pieces. Then, I'd likely call the sheriff and have you arrested for trespassing and littering, among other potential charges.

Regardless, shooting a rifle at a high angle into the air is a remarkably reckless thing to do. That bullet will come down with lethal velocity at a random location, perhaps several miles away.

Ye with such lack of imagination! I bet detectors that will detect and alert hovering RPVs outside windows of higher floors of buildings, homes, hotels, etc will debut in the next CES show and will sell like mad.

NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, calls on the United States Congress and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, to adopt legislation prohibiting information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into a Federal or State court, and precluding the domestic use of drones equipped with anti-personnel devices, meaning any projectile, chemical, electrical, directed-energy (visible or invisible), or other device designed to harm, incapacitate, or otherwise negatively impact a human being.

If that's the resolution it's not even a ban, it's just a call for a ban to be implemented by the state and federal government. And even then it's only a ban on drone footage as evidence or arming a drone.

Tell me what benefit such legal protection is to a man who is unmade into a smoking crater because of people who believe they have legal authority to do otherwise? Do we need to have a martyr and a legal determination, or can we simply and justly move as a functional democracy to repeal, ban, and/or repudiate this naked reservation of excessive force and power? Do you really believe that someone reserving the "authority" to murder someone is acceptable because we have laws against murder? How about when it's our President?

But the real (and begged) question is, do we truly believe that an _airstrike_ is an acceptable level of force to deal with the threat posed by a single individual?

We went wrong when our government got into the business of assassinating its enemies. Go back to _at least_ Kennedy (and the Cuban cigar ruse) for that. There is a reason why assassination carries a stigma as the kind of thing that rots and destroys any functioning society. It does, because the targets eventually become fungible and universal. Today's terrorist leader is tomorrow's Public Enemy #1 is today's inconvenient malcontent, and the dishonored dead all have friends who want revenge, and maybe can even get elected. It becomes, when used domestically, a internecine blood war.

In the meantime, if this kind of thing is proffered as acceptable in U.S. airspace, then we need to start assigning air raid precincts, training captains, and holding weekly drills like we did in WW-II. Just to limit the collateral damage. The Posse Comitatus act doesn't begin to put my mind at ease, unless I'm already dead. Then it's one of my last hopes for the future of those that survive me in a world where air strikes against individuals are considered reasonable force.

I mostly agree with you (rant included), but how do you suggest we fix it?

Well... Stop using assassination is a start. Stop using excessive force and justifying it by distant geography and the unlikeliness of reprisal is a second. If 9/11 demonstrated anything, it's demonstrated that Admiral Pacific and Atlantic do not protect us from reprisal any longer. So our policy should consider the possibility that geopolitical Machiavellianism is dangerous, like nearly every other first world country has realized because they burned down their own neighborhood a few times. We are not "exc

The Federal Government claims sovereign authority over everything over 500 ft. The Feds will continue to regulate this airspace, and if someone has a Federal license to operate a drone, it will override local regulations anyway.

Only thing this will do is bust people using unregulated space. We will probably hear about it being applied to kids strapping cameras to their RC airplanes.

The Charlotte measure seems to be primarily concerned with municipal and government use of drones. I'm not sure it even regulates amateur and civilian use. I didn't dig into the Oregon one -- that seemed like a much more comprehensive measure, but as long as the license process isn't onerous (as far as I could tell, it was mostly "If you want to fly a drone, you need to register first"), it seems acceptable to me to say "if you want to fly your drones here, we need to know who you are, ensure you are capa

Only thing this will do is bust people using unregulated space. We will probably hear about it being applied to kids strapping cameras to their RC airplanes.

Actually, it won't even do that (which is why this whole article is so stupid). It was just a resolution, not a law. Basically the Charlottesville, VA (population 43,000) city council just put out an opinion piece. Yawn.

Actually, it is exactly what the constitution says. Try Googling "9th amendment" for starters. And I don't see how the constitution being mispracticed is working at all. Hows that budget doing? Military still serving under the absolute authority of the civilian populace? I wouldn't mind having the 4th amendment back either.

As far as "necessary and proper", for which enumerated power is it "necessary" for the feds to regulate airspace? Post office?

I get why people are disturbed by assassinations and spying. What I don't get is why there is such a big deal made about the fact that it is being done by drones. What does it matter if the pilot is physically in the airplane or on the ground watching a video feed from a drone? Anything that can be done from a drone could have been done by an airplane with a pilot in it. Drones are just safer for the pilot, and makes it easier to go to the bathroom.

Rather than passing this kind of narrow minded anti-drone legislation, why don't they pass anti assassination or anti-spying legislation, if it's assassinations and spying that you are actually worried about. Anti-drone legislation only makes sense if you want pilots in those airplanes for some reason (e.g. because pilots are better at avoiding midair collisions, etc).

Yes but drones don't separate pilots that much more from taking a life than regular warplanes. Even in a regular warplane they are looking at a computer screen to hit targets, like a video game. Sure there is greater danger for the pilot, but I would imagine that would make him/her more prone to take the lives of others if he/she feels more threatened. The lack of danger allows pilots to make decisions that don't factor in their own safety. Maybe they can wait a little longer to see if the person they a

Not sure if its worth arguing with someone who doesn't see a problem with it becoming easier for people to take away human life. For the sake of anyone else reading - know that there are people who understand it is a problem. There are ethical people out there who grasp that problem with increasing the distance between the taking of a life and feeling the res

No. They are actually flown by pilots and pilots get flight time credits for controlling them. They do have autopilots like manned airplanes, but no one sends a drone up and tells it to fly around without monitoring it.

Some drones are larger than some manned aircraft. A global hawk is much bigger and more expensive than a Cessna with a spy camera. I guess the global hawk can go higher, but honestly would you really even notice if a Cessna was spying on you?

Drones are smaller, harder to see, and can stay up for a lot longer than a manned aircraft.

Even if this were true, wouldn't it make more sense to make laws against high endurance airplanes that are hard to see? That way if someone ever build a manned airplane with the spy features of a drone that we are worried about, it will also be covered under the law.

The first and worst reason is fear; the popular media plays up "drones used to kill X in Y" as if there are autonomous roaming vehicles that randomly blow up villages instead of being little different than regular military aircraft doing the same thing, except for expense and pilot risk. Clearly, because of this, Obama, who will personally be controlling these (of course), wants these autonomous drones (ignore contradiction!) in every city and town killing people who don't agree with The Liberal Socialist

For a given budget, you can field a whole lot more drones than manned vehicles. Even if they have to be continuously teleoperated, drone controllers are a lot cheaper than pilots, and drones are a lot cheaper to operate than manned vehicles.

I expect that before the end of the decade every squad car will carry multiple drones. This horse is out of sight of the barn.

I think it is for the same reason that (some) people are against GPS tracking by cops even though manual (by human) tracking is legal. When it is more expensive for the government to do, there is an in-built incentive against casual use.

We see the same dynamic with privacy and personal information. Before computers, technically someone could track and mine just as much information about your buying habits, but it wasn't worth the effort until computers made it cheap and easy. There may have been a few in

I don't disagree that financial cost can serve as a disincentive. I just think it is counterproductive to artificially force police to do things inefficiently, especially when they get their money from tax payers. If drones are 1/10th the price for the same spying capability, then we should give 1/10th the money and encourage them to use drones.

Furthermore, given that we don't have control over prices of various technology in the free market, rather than trying to predict the market, why not just create

The writing of the resolution coincides with a leaked memo outlining the legal case for drone strikes on U.S. citizens and a Federal Aviation Administration plan to allow the deployment of some 30,000 domestic drones.'

The leaked memo outlines the legal case for drone strikes on U.S. citizen on foreign soil. By neglecting that very important point and linking it to an FAA plan to allow drones in US airspace is implies that there will be 30,000 armed drones in US airspace. That is so far from the truth as to be laughable.

Did anyone else besides me read about attacks on Americans.Yeah, if we can't send soldiers in without higher then normal risk..in a war zone.If they can't get you any other way,if you are not on american soil,and you are making plans with terrorist to attack the country.

Yeah, end of the fucking world right their.

If an American was talking to Hitler in Berlin to make plans to come home and blow up bridges, would anyone said a damn thing if a sniper took him out? C

Virginia led the confederacy and the secession. CSA's army was called "The Army of the Northern Virginia" for that reason. They will not stand by and have a federal President usurping the authority to kill its citizens without due process. No sir. The Constitution of the United States reserves all the residual rights, not specifically enumerated in the constitution to the states. Thus only the Governor of Virginia can kill its citizens without due process.

I'm overjoyed that we're finally seeing some push-back from local, county and state governments to stop the rampant abuses of power by the federal government.CO, CA and WA telling the feds to F*** off on marijuana. Arizona actually enforcing immigration law. Virginia passing an anti-NDAA resolution. Country sheriffs saying "No" to proposed anti-gun policies. Now, people standing up to this ridiculous drone policy. Good for them.State, local and country governments (at least in my locale) are fairly res

> They don't have any power that's not explicitly granted to them by The Constitution.> The USA and federal government were created by states voluntarily ratifying The Constitution and joining in a union with other states.> The federal government has no legal authority to use military force against a state wishing to voluntarily withdraw from the union.

Many states are getting very tired of relentless federal government abuses like the drug war, NDAA, anti-gun